If you believe in evolution(only) you are an idiot - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

sarettah · 01-17-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyldworx

this is still going, so is life! Find a balance, and maybe u realize that evolution was part of the plan. When Moses was spoken to by the flaming tree, one thing of importance was said: I am who I am. It is that simple, it is what it is, and if the answer isn't good enough, hold on, more will be revealed!

Actually the most important thing said that day was said by Moses. And I quote:

"that is the best fucking ergot I have ever had. I bet we can sell this to the fucking egyptians for $5.00 a hit"

I was there. I know

Oh yeah. One fiddy frog gods

borked · 01-17-2007, 03:16 PM

We are of course, our own worst enemy. We are intervening and stopping/accelerating evolution right now... we introduce species in environments where they are not normally found, hence other species suffer, then we genetically modify the suffering species to combat the invading species we introduced. We introduce offspring to families by artificial means because they have genetically changed and cannot have children. We wipe out entire species or drive them to the brink of extinction because they are either a pest to us or they provide things that tickle our fancies.

And then there is homosexuality.

And of course the bible boffins jump on board and use God to try and legislate against all this. I mean these people can't be that intelligent or else they would use science instead of god to win their argument.

sarettah · 01-17-2007, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

We are of course, our own worst enemy. We are intervening and stopping/accelerating evolution right now... we introduce species in environments where they are not normally found, hence other species suffer, then we genetically modify the suffering species to combat the invading species we introduced. We introduce offspring to families by artificial means because they have genetically changed and cannot have children. We wipe out entire species or drive them to the brink of extinction because they are either a pest to us or they provide things that tickle our fancies.

Or, perhaps, that is just the way evolution works

borked · 01-17-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahab6

So if you believe in god, then where did god come from?

ask the elephants

borked · 01-17-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Or, perhaps, that is just the way evolution works

but that's not natural

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBadPepperedMoth

Oy black peppered moth, get the fuck offa my patch or I'll spray ya white, ya neega

sarettah · 01-17-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

ask the elephants

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. You aren't supposed to tell anyone about the elephants dammit.

Next thing you know you'll be spilling your guts about the giraffes too.

.

borked · 01-17-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. You aren't supposed to tell anyone about the elephants dammit.

Next thing you know you'll be spilling your guts about the giraffes too.

.

well if I do, it's because you let the big cat outta the bag

gigi · 01-17-2007, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

but that's not natural

If the universe simply all boils down to science and natural law as you state, then the outcome of our actions would also be 'natural'.

sarettah · 01-17-2007, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

but that's not natural

So, who said evolution is natural?

sarettah · 01-17-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

well if I do, it's because you let the big cat outta the bag

The hell you say. Let me tell you, any pussy I get, I keep around me. I never let it go.

And stop calling my wife a bag dammit

sarettah · 01-17-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

If the universe simply all boils down to science and natural law as you state, then the outcome of our actions would also be 'natural'.

Of course the outcomes of our actions are natural. We are part of nature and since we are part of nature, anything we do is natural.

.

gigi · 01-17-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Of course the outcomes of our actions are natural. We are part of nature and since we are part of nature, anything we do is natural.

.

Thanks for the reiteration, Sare...lol

sarettah · 01-17-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

Thanks for the reiteration, Sare...lol

np, naturally

.

Lazonby · 01-17-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

Believing in a secular, scientific reason for the universe (ie: a lucky mistake) takes just as much faith and is just as illogical as saying 'God did it'. Prove the universe is a mistake. Prove it! You can't....you are going on faith based on your experiences and current knowledge.

Logic should never be the only yardstick used to measure reality....in fact, it CAN'T be....even if you want it to be.

Nice post on pantheism BTW. Personally I'm of the panentheistic persuasion.

You're talking rubbish. In a cosmic, universal sense there are no such things as mistakes.

And in terms of things being 'lucky', there never was any chance involved. The probability of the Universe coming into being was 100%. The probability of evolution occuring was 100%. We know this because we can observe that both actually happened. Probability cannot be applied to past events, because everything in the past has a one or a zero value and nothing in between.

borked · 01-17-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

If the universe simply all boils down to science and natural law as you state, then the outcome of our actions would also be 'natural'.

Yup, evolution of our abilities could also apply - survival of the fittest and all that; just makes the human race damn resiliant. Infertility? No problem, we will adapt. But to mass-introduce species artificially puts non-natural strain on those that were already there. As does genetic modification. Stick in forest clearing for our lovely hardwood sideboards in there as well - damn stoopid wildlife need to adapt more quickly to their changing environment I 'spose.

borked · 01-17-2007, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Of course the outcomes of our actions are natural. We are part of nature and since we are part of nature, anything we do is natural.

I see where you are coming from. 1985 was a great year for science, but a very poor year for natural evolution.

vvq · 01-17-2007, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

We are of course, our own worst enemy. We are intervening and stopping/accelerating evolution right now... we introduce species in environments where they are not normally found, hence other species suffer, then we genetically modify the suffering species to combat the invading species we introduced. We introduce offspring to families by artificial means because they have genetically changed and cannot have children. We wipe out entire species or drive them to the brink of extinction because they are either a pest to us or they provide things that tickle our fancies.

And then there is homosexuality.

And of course the bible boffins jump on board and use God to try and legislate against all this. I mean these people can't be that intelligent or else they would use science instead of god to win their argument.

you're such a fucking idiot bro. you don't understand evolution at all. just shut the fuck up already. even in the absolute simplest way i can think of explaining it to you, it goes right over your head and you continue spitting bullshit that contradicts yourself.

gigi · 01-17-2007, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazonby

You're talking rubbish. In a cosmic, universal sense there are no such things as mistakes.

And in terms of things being 'lucky', there never was any chance involved. The probability of the Universe coming into being was 100%. The probability of evolution occuring was 100%. We know this because we can observe that both actually happened. Probability cannot be applied to past events, because everything in the past has a one or a zero value and nothing in between.

Okay...if you say so....

The chance of an event isn't dependent on the actual outcome. Chance is chance is chance, past, present and future.

FTR, I simply used 'lucky mistake' as an example because someone has mentioned it in this thread....you can believe in pure science and natural law and still you MUST have some level of faith to believe....

Mighty Chin · 01-17-2007, 04:24 PM

I believe in..........desk.

borked · 01-17-2007, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvq

you're such a fucking idiot bro. you don't understand evolution at all. just shut the fuck up already. even in the absolute simplest way i can think of explaining it to you, it goes right over your head and you continue spitting bullshit that contradicts yourself.

humour an idiot then, where did I spew any bullshit?

sacX · 01-17-2007, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvq

you're such a fucking idiot bro. you don't understand evolution at all. just shut the fuck up already. even in the absolute simplest way i can think of explaining it to you, it goes right over your head and you continue spitting bullshit that contradicts yourself.

evolution doesn't exist just because we can think of the concept. Sure calling it 'evolution' is a human construct, but that doesn't mean absent of the complex human mind it wouldn't still be happening.

Young · 01-17-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvq

if only it was that simple. gloss up, no one here needs a lesson in 8th grade biology. scientific theory is just that, theory. and your hardnosed beliefs actually go against evolution and science. you spew hypocrisy and you don't even know it.

basic analogy, maybe you'll understand.

can mold growing on bread comprehend calculus? can it draw a beautiful painting? does it understand the big bang theory? obviously no. there is a pretty big gap in how different the world is to us compared to how it is for mold. i mean mold can't even think! no fucking brain! mold just physically cannot understand the world the way we do. now imagine something spanning the other direction from us with an evolutionary difference comparable of that to which we compare ourselves to mold.

get it? think about it and just maybe you'll grasp how evolution works.

The Universe is 17.8 Billion years old.

Alot can happen to mold in 17.8 Billion years.

Lazonby · 01-17-2007, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

Okay...if you say so....

The chance of an event isn't dependent on the actual outcome. Chance is chance is chance, past, present and future.

Like I said, probability cannot be applied to past events because they all have a one or a zero value; either something happened or it didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

FTR, I simply used 'lucky mistake' as an example because someone has mentioned it in this thread....you can believe in pure science and natural law and still you MUST have some level of faith to believe....

Just because you have to have faith, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

gigi · 01-17-2007, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

Yup, evolution of our abilities could also apply - survival of the fittest and all that; just makes the human race damn resiliant. Infertility? No problem, we will adapt. But to mass-introduce species artificially puts non-natural strain on those that were already there. As does genetic modification. Stick in forest clearing for our lovely hardwood sideboards in there as well - damn stoopid wildlife need to adapt more quickly to their changing environment I 'spose.

No, I wouldn't say the human race is resiliant...and no, evolution doesn't mean adaptation. In fact, the term 'survival of the fittest' really has no place in evolutionary theory and is often the basis for misunderstanding the basics of evolution. Evolution supports the idea that the environment dictates what strains of species thrive and which die. 'Fittest' features are not made to order. They don't develop AFTER the environment changes, but rather, they existed long before they were needed. So no, adapting to ones enviroment is NOT a part of evolution. *shrugs*

As for the second part of your post, I've already addressed it...please re-read what I said above.

gigi · 01-17-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazonby

Just because you have to have faith, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

.

Pleasurepays · 01-17-2007, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

Ok smarty pants where did the cells come from that started our life? Beyond that where did the material come from before the big bang? Get a grip its obvious there is something out there larger, greater and way beyond our comprehension so why dont you practice a little faith.

translation:

"i don't know the answer... so i invented an answer that satisfies me"

vvq · 01-17-2007, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

humour an idiot then, where did I spew any bullshit?

one more time for you...

Quote:

We are of course, our own worst enemy. We are intervening and stopping/accelerating evolution right now... we introduce species in environments where they are not normally found, hence other species suffer, then we genetically modify the suffering species to combat the invading species we introduced. We introduce offspring to families by artificial means because they have genetically changed and cannot have children. We wipe out entire species or drive them to the brink of extinction because they are either a pest to us or they provide things that tickle our fancies.

And then there is homosexuality.

And of course the bible boffins jump on board and use God to try and legislate against all this. I mean these people can't be that intelligent or else they would use science instead of god to win their argument.

Everything above. You just don't understand evolution, you wouldn't say anything above if you did. Whatever happens, happens because it can. And that's all evolution. You don't stop and start it. Reread the previous posts in which I tried to explain it to you. Tell me what doesn't make sense to you because clearly something doesn't.

vvq · 01-17-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Young

The Universe is 17.8 Billion years old.

Alot can happen to mold in 17.8 Billion years.

obviously. now apply your same train of thought forward spanning from humans. evolution. don't you see everything is based on perception and the biological limits imposed on perception. mold has no eyes. they cannot see. now think of what might evolve in the future. they/it/whatever looks at humans. humans have no _______. they cannot _______. the unfathomable goes in those blanks as it's like mold attempting to fathom what humans are able to do. the future is an open book. everythig imaginable and unimaginable could or could not happen.

sarettah · 01-17-2007, 07:29 PM

So many words

, so little said

IT IS

.

Timbo · 01-17-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Young

Bingo. . .

Double bingo.
I could not agree more.

wizhard · 01-17-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

Ok smarty pants where did the cells come from that started our life? Beyond that where did the material come from before the big bang? Get a grip its obvious there is something out there larger, greater and way beyond our comprehension so why dont you practice a little faith.

Theories abound as to where the raw material came from that created our Universe but no one has been able as yet to come up with any conclusive answers. So for the time being at least the most fundamental question regarding the origin of life will remain unanswered.

The two main protaganists in the eternal creation/evolution debate in the West have generaly been the Darwinist/evolutionary supporters and the God/creationalists. Darwinists mock the God/creationalists for having no scientific basis to build their claims on, while on the other hand the God/creationalists are quick to point out the scientific flaws in the evolutionists evidence such as the 'missing links' in the fossil record and the way some species seem to have 'fast forwarded' geneticaly with no evidence for the intermidiate stages of development, ( It's interesting to note how the three main staple crops of the world - rice, wheat and corn seem to have just magically 'appeared' round about time in history with no evidence for their natural origin and even Darwin himself admitted towards the end of his life that there was fundamental problems with his theory )

However, have we been looking in the wrong place for that answer ?

The science of Darwins day was based on the deterministic/predictable world of Newtonian physics, but since the beggining of the 20th century this has been steadly replaced by the weird and wonderfull world of quantum mechanics turning much of the conceived scientific wisdom of previous times on it's head

Does William Blakes famous 'quantumesque' poem give us a clue......

To see the world in a grain of sand
And heaven in a wild flower
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour

My guess is that it does.

borked · 01-17-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

No, I wouldn't say the human race is resiliant...and no, evolution doesn't mean adaptation.

Adaption isn't an example of evolution? Are you mad? Of course it is - go back and learn from some proper source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

They don't develop AFTER the environment changes, but rather, they existed long before they were needed. So no, adapting to ones enviroment is NOT a part of evolution. *shrugs*

Oh my god (pun intended), where did you get taught evolution? By nuns? Evolution can be adaptation or an exisitng developmental state. Ever learn about the peppered moth or Darwin's finches.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

...please re-read what I said above.

Likewise

borked · 01-17-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvq

obviously. now apply your same train of thought forward spanning from humans. evolution. don't you see everything is based on perception and the biological limits imposed on perception. mold has no eyes. they cannot see. now think of what might evolve in the future. they/it/whatever looks at humans. humans have no _______. they cannot _______. the unfathomable goes in those blanks as it's like mold attempting to fathom what humans are able to do. the future is an open book. everythig imaginable and unimaginable could or could not happen.

And that is what you idea is about evolution?

borked · 01-17-2007, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvq

You just don't understand evolution, you wouldn't say anything above if you did. Whatever happens, happens because it can. And that's all evolution. You don't stop and start it. Reread the previous posts in which I tried to explain it to you. Tell me what doesn't make sense to you because clearly something doesn't.

You sir, are clearly misinformed. I do agree that evolution happens because it can - nowhere did I say otherwise. But of course you can stop evolution - a panda only eats bamboo, nothing else. Now if you eradicated bamboo from the planet by non-natural means you have stopped evolution of panda, because he will not survive. You could of course look at it the other way, that you have accelerated evolution bcause panda was always doomed for extinction, ever since he evolved into a bear that only ate bamboo. Evolution can be a negative thing as well. Either way like you said evolution happens because it can, if the animal is nolonger alive, it can't therefore you have stopped evolution

If you introduce pest-resistant mutations of genes into crops, you have accelerated evolution of that species - it may well have evolved to introduce a mutation that made it more restant of its own accord, and it may hav happened tomorrow or in a billion years time. But man introduced it today.

sarettah · 01-17-2007, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

Adaption isn't an example of evolution? Are you mad? Of course it is - go back and learn from some proper source.

Sorry borked, but gotta go with the lady on this one. Adaptation is not evolution.

Reference Stephen Gould - A Panda's thumbs

vvq · 01-18-2007, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

You sir, are clearly misinformed. I do agree that evolution happens because it can - nowhere did I say otherwise. But of course you can stop evolution - a panda only eats bamboo, nothing else. Now if you eradicated bamboo from the planet by non-natural means you have stopped evolution of panda, because he will not survive.

There is no such thing as non-natural. Humans and what we do are not above or beyond evolution. We're a part of it just like everything else. Implying that our actions are non-natural is like implying it was non-natural for creatures to come out of the sea and onto land. Coming onto land was a product of evolution. Us developing nuclear weapons was a product of evolution.

Stop looking at evolution as something you can observe from a perspective that puts you apart from it. Everything we do is part of it. It's not right, it's not wrong, it's evolution.

Quote:

You could of course look at it the other way, that you have accelerated evolution bcause panda was always doomed for extinction, ever since he evolved into a bear that only ate bamboo. Evolution can be a negative thing as well. Either way like you said evolution happens because it can, if the animal is nolonger alive, it can't therefore you have stopped evolution

Evolution is always taking place. You do not start or stop it. While you may think the death of a species is the stopping of evolution, it is advancement of another. Evolution goes one way. Foward. Even if we nuke the entire planet, evolution still goes that one way. The death of the dinosaurs didn't stop evolution did it? Just because a species dies doesn't mean the way evolution works changes.

Quote:

If you introduce pest-resistant mutations of genes into crops, you have accelerated evolution of that species - it may well have evolved to introduce a mutation that made it more restant of its own accord, and it may hav happened tomorrow or in a billion years time. But man introduced it today.

Ever think the introduction of pest-resistant mutations is also a part of evolution? Your ideas of things being non-natural or being able to positively or negatively influence evolution are incorrect. Whatever happens is evolution, plain and simple.

CC · 01-18-2007, 12:03 AM

Once and for all: evolution is NOT the same thing as adaption. Adaption ensures evolution; but they are not the same thing.

vvq · 01-18-2007, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC

Once and for all: evolution is NOT the same thing as adaption. Adaption ensures evolution; but they are not the same thing.

adaption is a product of evolutionary events. it's a part of evolution.

gigi · 01-18-2007, 01:17 AM

Adaptation is NOT part of the basic theory of evolution. For example, the first bipeds didn't just suddenly develop at the end of the Miocene period because the forest habitat was being replaced by grasslands and bipedality became beneficial. There was ALREADY biped hominids thriving in the forest habitat. Fact is, these hominids just 'happened' to be bipeds and bipedalism was a beneficial feature when the grasslands surpassed the forest as the major source of food and shelter.

Get it? The trait comes BEFORE the environmental changes. That is the basis of the theory of evolution...not adaptation.

borked · 01-18-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

Sorry borked, but gotta go with the lady on this one. Adaptation is not evolution.

Reference Stephen Gould - A Panda's thumbs

Nah, don't buy it - I've never read it, but I heard that Stephen Gould wrote that to pacify the Bible band. Ever read A Selfish Gene, by Richard Hawking - now that is a fantastic book.

And adaptation is all in there in the evolution milieu

borked · 01-18-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

Adaptation is NOT part of the basic theory of evolution. For example, the first bipeds didn't just suddenly develop at the end of the Miocene period because the forest habitat was being replaced by grasslands and bipedality became beneficial. There was ALREADY biped hominids thriving in the forest habitat. Fact is, these hominids just 'happened' to be bipeds and bipedalism was a beneficial feature when the grasslands surpassed the forest as the major source of food and shelter.

Get it? The trait comes BEFORE the environmental changes. That is the basis of the theory of evolution...not adaptation.

Go and find a better example to sustain your argument and stop copy/pasting from Google lookups

borked · 01-18-2007, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvq

There is no such thing as non-natural. Humans and what we do are not above or beyond evolution. We're a part of it just like everything else. Implying that our actions are non-natural is like implying it was non-natural for creatures to come out of the sea and onto land. Coming onto land was a product of evolution. Us developing nuclear weapons was a product of evolution.

Stop looking at evolution as something you can observe from a perspective that puts you apart from it. Everything we do is part of it. It's not right, it's not wrong, it's evolution.

Voilà - that is the crux of our differing points-of-view. We'll have to just agree to disagree here because I am of the stance that meddling at the genetic level with other species is not evolution for that species. It's interference, with zero chance of adaptation

CC · 01-18-2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vvq

adaption is a product of evolutionary events. it's a part of evolution.

No, I'm sorry, but you are incorrect if you still think that evolution and adaption are the same thing (I notice you are changing your verbiage, but I'm assuming you still have the same position). Evolution is the changing of genetic composition as a result of natural selection. Adaption is an alteration of species' habits in order to adjust to its environment. One has to do with changing genetics and the other has to do with changing behavior.

gigi · 01-18-2007, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

Go and find a better example to sustain your argument and stop copy/pasting from Google lookups

Just fyi, I'm an archaeology major student and what I post here is original text based on my current knowledge of the subject. Google that paragraph I wrote....really, please do...

Maybe you should be the one to review YOUR sources.

gigi · 01-18-2007, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CC

No, I'm sorry, but you are incorrect if you still think that evolution and adaption are the same thing (I notice you are changing your verbiage, but I'm assuming you still have the same position). Evolution is the changing of genetic composition as a result of natural selection. Adaption is an alteration of species' habits in order to adjust to its environment. One has to do with changing genetics and the other has to do with changing behavior.

I think he is confusing adaptation with mutation.

CC · 01-18-2007, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gigi

I think he is confusing adaptation with mutation.

I think you are correct. I'm jealous of your archeology major...my love is physical anthropology, but my degree is in Computer Information Systems (my "practical" degree, which is also my backup plan if porn ever fails me). One of these days I am determined to get another degree in anthropology...I find it fascinating and love to read up on it.

sarettah · 01-18-2007, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by borked

Nah, don't buy it - I've never read it, but I heard that Stephen Gould wrote that to pacify the Bible band. Ever read A Selfish Gene, by Richard Hawking - now that is a fantastic book.

And adaptation is all in there in the evolution milieu

It was a film.

Gould never did anything to pacify the bible crowd, he is current and doesn't have to worry about the church taking his head off

sarettah · 01-18-2007, 03:20 AM

BTW, selfish gene is Richard Dawking, not Hawking

Joe Citizen · 01-18-2007, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarettah

BTW, selfish gene is Richard Dawking, not Hawking

Uh no, its Richard Dawkins.

Lazonby · 01-18-2007, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Citizen

Uh no, its Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins is that guy who screwed Mrs Garrison.

01-17-2007, 03:16 PM	#152
borked Totally Borked Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 6,284	We are of course, our own worst enemy. We are intervening and stopping/accelerating evolution right now... we introduce species in environments where they are not normally found, hence other species suffer, then we genetically modify the suffering species to combat the invading species we introduced. We introduce offspring to families by artificial means because they have genetically changed and cannot have children. We wipe out entire species or drive them to the brink of extinction because they are either a pest to us or they provide things that tickle our fancies. And then there is homosexuality. And of course the bible boffins jump on board and use God to try and legislate against all this. I mean these people can't be that intelligent or else they would use science instead of god to win their argument. __________________ For coding work - hit me up on andy // borkedcoder // com (consider figuring out the email as test #1) All models are wrong, but some are useful. George E.P. Box. p202

01-17-2007, 04:24 PM	#169
Mighty Chin Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Burnaby BC Posts: 781	I believe in..........desk. __________________ Do you need design work done. I am available check out my site TMC Web Designs

01-17-2007, 07:29 PM	#179
sarettah see you later, I'm gone Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14,111	So many words , so little said IT IS . __________________ All cookies cleared!

01-18-2007, 01:17 AM	#189
gigi Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada Posts: 691	Adaptation is NOT part of the basic theory of evolution. For example, the first bipeds didn't just suddenly develop at the end of the Miocene period because the forest habitat was being replaced by grasslands and bipedality became beneficial. There was ALREADY biped hominids thriving in the forest habitat. Fact is, these hominids just 'happened' to be bipeds and bipedalism was a beneficial feature when the grasslands surpassed the forest as the major source of food and shelter. Get it? The trait comes BEFORE the environmental changes. That is the basis of the theory of evolution...not adaptation. __________________ eMail ICQ: 32862272

01-18-2007, 03:20 AM	#198
sarettah see you later, I'm gone Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 14,111	BTW, selfish gene is Richard Dawking, not Hawking __________________ All cookies cleared!

01-18-2007, 12:03 AM	#187
CC Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 1,690	Once and for all: evolution is NOT the same thing as adaption. Adaption ensures evolution; but they are not the same thing.